Gates: U.S. Not Prepared to Respond to North Korea Missile Launch

reply to post by Harlequin


What, you're not going to say anything about the Russian missile tests in 2007? Of course not, since they're not the US. How about the Russian tests of 2008? Again, since it wasn't the US then it's fine right?

NORTH KOREAN missile tests are illegal because of the treaty that was signed in 2002.

. Both sides confirmed that they would co-operate with each other in order to maintain and strengthen the peace and stability of North East Asia.
Both sides confirmed the importance of establishing co-operative relationships based upon mutual trust among countries concerned in this region, and shared the recognition that it is important to have a framework in place in order for these regional countries to promote confidence-building, as the relationships among these countries are normalized.
Both sides confirmed that, for an overall resolution of the nuclear issues on the Korean Peninsula, they would comply with all related international agreements. Both sides also confirmed the necessity of resolving security problems including nuclear and missile issues by promoting dialogues among countries concerned.
The DPRK side expressed its intention that, pursuant to the spirit of this Declaration, it would further maintain the moratorium on missile launching in and after 2003.

www.mofa.go.jp...


[edit on 3/29/2009 by Zaphod58]

The World Bankers probably want the U.S to focus on them getting their $ then starting a war, right now...


After the trillions from the fed clear, then can do whatever.

I mean, that IS who is control of Obama isn;t it? the world banks?

This conspiracy stuff makes my head hurt.

Originally posted by Maxmars
Why is Fox news calling it an 'illegal' launch?

Because it is.

Originally posted by MaxmarsThe international community has not outlawed this kind of launch.

The UN made a law stating DPRK is not to launch any missiles. Doesn't matter if it's a weapon or an ESPN satellite. No missile launches.


We could shoot it down, but it's not to our advantage.

LOL at the moral equivalencies. US has nukes so DPRK should be allowed to have them too ?

Thank you all for asserting so clearly the issue.

The problem, as I understood it, was not a technical one.

This is not a missile launch.

It is a rocket launch.

Report: North Korea launch would go before UN

By KWANG-TAE KIM, Associated Press Writer Kwang-tae Kim, Associated Press Writer – Sat Mar 28, 11:51 am ET

SEOUL, South Korea – South Korea, the United States and Japan warned that North Korea's planned rocket launch would violate a U.N. resolution and said they would take the issue to the Security Council if the North goes ahead with it, a news report said Saturday.

Now I know that if their intent is evil, they must be stopped, and I know that the government of North Korea is notoriously ill-favored, but there is a difference between a rocket and a missile.

Do you not think that matters, in this instance?

I love how they say it has the capability to hit Hawaii.

It doesn't take much fuel to burn one entire earth orbit, X &/or Y, to anywhere you wish to drop a dart. It's time the janes defense people quit thinking we are that dumb. Though yes, the politicians, largely, are that dumb.

If you have the ability to get into orbit you have the capability to hit ANY part of the planet you wish. The stage after the exit vehicle / orbit entry is of the most mundane science and could be built in a woodshed found in a typical urban neighborhood. PERIOD.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Ha!

I knew they would pull this. Get all high and mighty and scream at the top of their lungs that NK will not get away with it. Move military units over there in preparation to shoot it down.

And then politely decide they can do nothing about it. That's just an excuse to say they never did it when the launch pad blows up or when it's hit in mid air after launch.

It could also be so that NK doesn't fly off the handle and level Seoul once they realize that their missile or satelite didn't quite make up as high as it should have.

More propanda from the DoD to save their own skins.

~Keeper

they needed a cover, if they shot down the missile, or satellite whatever it may be they knew the backlash that would happen...

but now... oh but now they can say "we didn't have the capabilities to do that"

nice to see the change...

reply to post by Zaphod58


no because it was a fast reply and the US tridents launches were the first to come to mind , last weeks indian launch would also be mentioned , as was the iranian launch last year , and pakistan launches and the chinese befere the olympics etc etc

reply to post by Zaphod58


A self-imposed moratorium is not a "law". Can you point me to the precise UNSC Resolution that prohibits them carrying out test launches?

Also, Japan does have the technology to shoot down any incoming missile and has expressed a willingness to do so if Japan was threatened.

Their pacifist constitution does not prohibit them taking defences measures and it is also up for change anyway as it is seen as hampering modern Japan and it's status as a world player.

Alot of crap in this thread and very little concrete fact.....

Let's strap a mobile phone to a sub launched ICBM and fire it over Pyongyang. We could always say it was a test to see if we could launch a coms device from a sub.

If nothing else it will show Little Kim just how close total destruction can be.
Dictators think nothing of sacrificing the lives of their soldiers...but they tend to be a lot quieter when they realise that it's not the soldiers you will be gunning for.

This is a lame statment if thier ever was one Gates said we cant do anyting about it. Suppose one day soon, they make a missle capable of hitting mainland USA nuclear scale....OH, were sorry, their was absoultely nothing we can do about it( Gates/us government), as NYC is now irradiated with plutonium and reduced to cynders..making Hiroshima look like a small pack of matches went up in flames by comparison.
Bet yuor money on this...IF bush was stilla round, it would be bomb fist, ask questions later.

Sounds to me, like the goverment, obama WANT this missle thing in north Korea to succeed...for whatever reason. Thats my 2 cents and theory.

I call BS on the whole "we can't do anything about it". I know for a fact we can and have intercepted ballistic missles in the past. The base that does all of the tests for the new intercepter system launches out of hawaii. If we don't intercept it, it will because we have a coward in the president seat, not because we can't. We were even helping Japan test the same system last year. By the way it can be launched via boat. Japan launched from a boat and we have done so as well. Japan failed but we have been successfull every time.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by LeaderOfProgress]

Originally posted by ziggy1706
Suppose one day soon, they make a missle capable of hitting mainland USA nuclear scale...

And ?

They know vert well a nuclear strike on this country would result in the complete annihilation of the Korean Peninsula.

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
If we don't intercept it, it will because we have a coward in the president seat, not because we can't.

We're not going to intercept it, because it's not in the natl interest to do so.

What would it accomplish ? Nothing good.

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by ziggy1706
Suppose one day soon, they make a missle capable of hitting mainland USA nuclear scale...

And ?

They know vert well a nuclear strike on this country would result in the complete annihilation of the Korean Peninsula.

i think the south might be a little ticked off by that - as would the US bases with nearly 20,000 army folk (and the 10k airman , marines and navy there as well)

Originally posted by Maxmars
. . . The problem, as I understood it, was not a technical one.

This is not a missile launch.

It is a rocket launch . . .

Now I know that if their intent is evil, they must be stopped, and I know that the government of North Korea is notoriously ill-favored, but there is a difference 4between a rocket and a missile.

Do you not think that matters, in this instance?

I don't think the technicality between a rocket and missile apply in this case. A missile is a self-propelled projectile used as a weapon. It may be propelled by a "rocket" engine, but the idea behind a missile is that is can "go where they want it to" for lack of a better term.

The question is where do they want it to go and what is on the end of NK's "rocket propelled" missile?


reply to post by LeaderOfProgress


That's exactly what I was getting at, the entire posture from our Secretary of "Defense" is suspect. Gates says, "I would say we're not prepared to do anything about it." What does that even mean? "I would say . . . "? What do you mean you WOULD say, Gates? Either you are saying it or you aren't. Does this seem like the stature of the Secretary of Defense of the most militarily advanced nation on the Earth?

Secretary of Defense Gates then goes on to say:

"I don't know anyone at a senior level in the American government who does not believe this technology is intended as a mask for the development of an intercontinental ballistic missile."

???

And our plan is to let them keep testing their rocket propelled guided-missiles?

Let's see, just to keep score, how many missiles did Saddam test fire before we invaded Iraq? Oh yeah, zero.

Well I guess if there is no military intervention we can count on Diplomatic means to address the situation. Let's see what Defense Secretary Gates has to say about the subject:

"The reality is that the six-party talks really have not made any headway anytime recently."

Gee, there's a real shocker. Well then, what's the solution Gates?

"Frankly, from my perspective, the opportunity for success is probably more in economic sanctions . . ."

Of course, economic sanctions, because that's worked so well up till now.


[edit on 30-3-2009 by DrZERO]